Last Wednesday, the planning board voted against two major subdivisions in the Eight Mile area east of Florence: Morado Mountain Eastates and Sandhill Ridge. Together, the developments represent more than 90 homes.

The votes themselves weren’t the focus of the meeting, but the statement by members of the board who represented the majority of the vote, that cumulative effects of development in the valley are detrimental to Ravalli County.

Lee Kierig, president of the planning board and member of its newly formed sustainability subcommittee, said it’s time to consider the cumulative effects of growth in the valley.

In a prepared statement, Kierig said:

“For local services … that necessarily measure the community’s ability to adequately provide the services required in support of public interest, it is glaringly evident that the capacities of fire districts, law enforcement, emergency ambulance systems, school districts, domestic water protection and transportation systems are now operating in severe deficit and without adequate community support.”

The planning board doesn’t have regulatory power. Their job is to make recommendations to the county commissioners, who ultimately decide the fate of any subdivision.

But part of the planning board’s responsibility is to look at the bigger picture, said Kierig in an interview after the meeting.

“The sustainability subcommittee was created to study issues of sustainability going into the next phase of the zoning project,” Kierig said.

The subcommittee has been talking to ambulance services, fire districts and the sheriff’s office in an effort to find data about how well these emergency services can meet the Bitterroot Valley’s growing needs, he said.

“We wanted to dig into it and see what was there,” Kierig said.

The goal is to ultimately create a document for the county that outlines the cumulative effects of growth on the Bitterroot Valley, he said.

What the subcommittee has found so far is emergency services can’t adequately protect the citizens in the valley.

Given that, it seemed like the responsible thing to do was deny subdivisions that would further strain the system, he said.

“It is reckless and irresponsible of us as community leaders, whether appointed or elected, to ignore the facts that are facing us on the table right now,” Kierig said. “Until these systems can be brought up to adequacy, even as it is now, how can we responsibly approve these major subdivisions in the rural hinterlands?”

But not all members of the planning board agreed with the decision to deny the two subdivisions.

Given the fact the county had approved many other subdivisions in Eight Mile area and the developers of the two subdivisions denied Wednesday had offered a significant amount of money toward road construction, schools and the sheriff’s department, it didn’t make sense to vote against them, said planning board member, Chip Pigman.

Pigman does agree that looking at the cumulative impacts of growth on emergency services is a good idea.

“But, my interpretation of state law is that it doesn’t allow us to do that,” he said in an interview after the meeting.

Pigman was impressed that the developers of both subdivisions had worked with the county attorney’s office, the planning department and the county road department to come to an agreement on how the roads servicing the subdivision would be improved. The agreement outlined that the developers would pay for the materials to improve a significant portion of Eight Mile Road, while the county would provide the labor.

But despite that agreement, the majority of the planning board seemed to already have their mind made up when the meeting started, Pigman said.

“I think the decision was made before we got there,” he said.

In some ways, that isn’t uncommon. The planning board members are provided with the subdivision forms prior to their meetings and often any mitigation or agreements are outlined in those forms, Pigman said. So it’s not uncommon for a planning board member to have some sort of idea about how they’re going to vote on a particular subdivision before the meeting starts.

But the point of the meeting is to discuss the subdivision, ask questions of the planning department and the developers, and then make a final recommendation for the county commissioners, he said.

Wednesday’s meeting seemed to be more about making a statement.

At the end of the meeting, Pigman told the board, “Guys, you used tonight for social engineering.”

Now he’s curious as to how the board will review subdivisions in the future.

The next planning board meeting is this Wednesday, where the board will look at two more major subdivisions.

Montana Work Solutions

A special kind of employment service

By Michael Howell

For some people entering the work force can be more difficult than for the average person. For many reasons people with special needs or disabilities, although capable of doing many forms of work, find it difficult to land a job. But in the Bitterroot Valley there is a special kind of employment service designed specifically to help people with special needs and disabilities find work. It’s called Montana Work Solutions. It is an innovative employment service owned and operated by Susanne Meikle.

If you are in business in the valley you may already be familiar with Meikle, as she puts in a lot of time contacting local businesses in search of those that are open to the concept of employing someone who is disabled or has special needs. Meikle works as much with the local businesses as she does with her clients in trying to find the right match between employer and employee.

While some people with disabilities of one form or another need an extremely sheltered environment in order to function, many others do not and, besides having a desire to join in the larger community, they also have the ability, if only given the chance and a little extra help. That’s where Meikle and her unique employment service come into play.

Meikle takes the time to thoroughly assess her clients. She examines their skills and talents, discovers their real interests, and assesses their weaknesses. She also spends a lot of time checking out local businesses, seeking out those employers who are open to the concept of employing the disabled. She assesses the businesses’ needs and examines the working environment with the aim of matching her client with the right business. If a match is found then both the employee and the employer stand to benefit.

Meikle’s work does not end with the hiring of her client, however. She continues to provide support to both her client and the employer to help ensure continued success.

Montana Work Solutions began in Missoula in 2000 as part of the University of Montana Rural Institute. In 2003 a branch was opened in Hamilton with funding from the Montana Developmental Disability Program and Vocational Rehabilitation. That grant ended in July of 2007 and at that point, Meikle began operating as her own company.

“Montana Work Solutions was started by the University of Montana,” said Meikle, “but the aim from the very beginning was to incubate a business that would eventually stand alone in the community providing these kinds of special services.”

Meikle has, over the years, successfully placed clients in positions as accountants, bookkeepers, medical receptionists, daycare workers, auto painting, truck driving, pharmacy technician, retail workers, nursery workers and more. Her company has also successfully worked with clients in establishing their own businesses and working for themselves in such activities as jewelry making, photography and making gift baskets.

There are, in some circumstances, some extra incentives for businesses willing to offer such special employment, such as partial payment of the employee’s wages during the first year. And then, of course, there is the extra satisfaction that an employer can find in helping an individual, who might otherwise be left out, in joining in the wider community in a healthy and productive fashion. Both the individual and the community benefit greatly.

If you have some special needs but are willing and able to work at the right job, or if you are a business with a need and a willingness to give someone with special needs a chance, you can contact Meikle at Montana Work Solutions by calling 363-7700 or by e-mail at meikle@ruralinstitute.umt.edu.

Protecting our water

Local pharmacies collecting discarded drugs to help prevent groundwater contamination

By Greg Lemon

If you have a medicine cabinet full of outdated or unneeded prescription drugs, don’t throw them in the trash or flush them down the toilet. Take them to Bitterroot Drug in Hamilton, Family Pharmacy in Stevensville, or Florence Community Pharmacy.

These local pharmacies have joined together to provide citizens with an option of discarding their prescription drugs other than throwing them in the garbage or flushing them down the toilet.

“Currently we are finding traces of pharmaceuticals in our rivers, lakes and city water supplies in select areas of the country,” said Bitterroot Drug owner, Pete Seifert. “One of the means of preventing that is to get people to dispose of their medications in the proper way.”

Seifert’s quick to point out that currently pharmaceuticals in the Bitterroot River or in local groundwater supplies doesn’t appear to be a problem. But it could become one, and proper disposal of prescription drugs is one way to prevent it.

“The problem with flushing them down the toilet is our wastewater treatment plants don’t have the technology to eliminate the pharmaceuticals from the water,” he said.

Recent groundwater tests around Helena discovered trace amounts of chemicals found in pharmaceuticals and personal care products, said Joe Meek, who is with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s source water protection program.

The chemicals found in Meek’s study existed in small or very small amounts. However, the effects they may have on people or wildlife is really unknown, Meek said.

“Everywhere people are leaving footprints we tend to see these compounds – again in small or extremely small quantities,” he said.

These chemicals can be associated with prescription and nonprescription pharmaceuticals or personal care products, such as sunscreen or insect repellent.

In some places around the country, these chemicals include hormones or hormone mimicking compounds that have actually affected fish populations, said Herb Buxton, with the U.S Geological Survey in New Jersey.

Buxton was part of a nationwide study in 1999 and 2000 that looked at chemical pollution in surface water. The results got people’s attention, he said.

“Our first study was designed just to determine whether these chemicals were present,” Buxton said.

The most common chemicals they found included steroids, nonprescription drugs and insect repellents, he said.

Since then, other studies have found that hormonally active compounds in water have actually led to mutations in fish populations, Buxton said. The most common mutation is the feminization of male fish, where male fish exhibit female physiology.

In many ways, research into the effects these compounds have on humans and how prevalent they are in drinking water is still emerging, said Lea Jordon, Ravalli County sanitarian.

Typically, these chemicals are present in such low levels it takes expensive tests to find them, she said. Even if the county did test groundwater for pharmaceuticals and personal care products, the federal government hasn’t set any standards to meet.

“We’re just kind of waiting to get directive from the national level down to determine what we should do about it,” Jordan said.

Last year, the Bitterroot chapter of Trout Unlimited did pay for the testing of two water samples of the Bitterroot River, said member Doug Nation.

The samples were taken from Main Street Bridge in Hamilton and the Silver Bridge, just downstream of town. The idea was to take one sample from above the Hamilton wastewater treatment facility and one downstream from it, Nation said.

The sample from the Main Street bridge was clean, but the sample from the Silver Bridge contained very small amounts of two drugs: Sulfamethoxizole, an antibiotic, and Gemfibrozile, an anti-cholesterol drug.

“It’s appropriate to point out that these hits for these two drugs were very, very low,” Nation said.

The Sulfamethoxizole was present in 15 parts per trillion and the Gemfibrozile was present in nine parts per trillion, he said.

Another question about these drug compounds is how they find their way into ground and surface water, Meek said. Some of the contamination is from flushing prescription drugs down the toilet, but it also comes from human waste. When we take drugs, our bodies don’t completely process them and so they end up coming out in our waste, he said.

But the easiest way to get ahead of the problem is the proper disposal of pharmaceuticals, Seifert said.

“That’s not necessarily going to cure the problem, but I think it’s a step in the right direction,” he said.

Bitterroot Drug will take expired or unused pharmaceuticals dropped off by citizens to Marcus Daly Memorial Hospital for disposal.

John Bartos, CEO of the hospital, is pleased to help with the drug disposal project.

“The hospital has the ability to dispose of them properly, it would make sense to us to provide that service to the valley,” Bartos said.

Marcus Daly Memorial Hospital will only be taking pharmaceuticals from Bitterroot Drug. They’re not set up to accept drop offs from the public. If people want to get rid of their prescription drugs, they need to drop them off at one of the participating pharmacies, he said.

“We’re just supporting Bitterroot Drug on this and we thought it was a good idea,” Bartos said.

For more information on the pharmaceutical disposal program, call one of the participating pharmacies: Bitterroot Drug, 363-3611; Family Pharmacy, 777-5002; and Florence Community Pharmacy, 273-6565.

Waste water treatment upgrade could cost Stevensville millions

By Michael Howell

When the Town of Stevensville’s waste water discharge permit from the state was renewed in 2006 it came with some upgrade requirements and associated deadlines. According to a study recently delivered by HDR Engineering, those required improvements could cost the town up to $4.4 million. Phased in over a number of years the cost could reach $5.5 million at an estimated 5 percent inflation rate.

Craig Caprara of HDR Engineering presented a series of alternatives and recommendations to council members last Monday night for meeting the state requirements. The work would include some form of disinfection treatment for the system, dealing with a leaking polishing pond, and addressing the problem that the Town’s current permit is for a discharge point in the Bitterroot River, while the actual discharge point falls short of that mark, draining into an intermittent channel instead.

HDR examined three types of disinfection treatments including chlorine, ozone and ultra-violet treatments. After analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of each method, HDR recommended installation of an ultra-violet light system that was estimated to cost about $540,000. It was the least costly of the three systems examined. The advantages of the UV system was that it was simple to operate, involved no chemicals, and produced no by-product.

The problem with the Town’s polishing pond, a large settling pool located next to the treatment plant, is that it is connected to the ground water in the area, but the Town’s waste water system is not permitted for discharge into groundwater. The Town could try to get a permit to discharge to groundwater but it would require an extensive groundwater study in the area with no guarantee of success. That study and some new piping would cost about $220,000. The cost of simply decommissioning the pond would be $203,000. A third alternative considered and the one recommended was to retain the pond as a back-up system for upsets. That option was estimated to cost $289,000. It would also require a groundwater study and obtaining a permit to use the pond as the outfall point instead of the river. If the permit turned out to be unattainable, the cost of placing a liner in the pond would be about $780,000.

Extending the waste water system to reach its currently permitted point of discharge, or outfall, in the Bitterroot River could cost up to $300,000. It would be complicated by necessary land acquisition. The current owners of the adjacent land have indicated that they are not willing to allow it, making condemnation proceedings a distinct possibility if that option were pursued. Caprara also said that the shifting nature of the river in the area could also render the efforts futile. The recommended option was to pursue a permit for the existing discharge point. Caprara said that officials at DEQ had indicated that it might be a possible solution, but there were no guarantees. This option would only cost about $10,000. Drawbacks to that option include potential restrictions on discharge of nutrients into the river that could be implemented in the near future. Without a mixing zone in the river itself the Town would have to meet those new standards at its discharge outlet, which might not be attainable. It might also require an easement from the current property owner.

Recommended capital improvements for secondary biological treatment systems are also quite costly. Installation of a biological nutrient removal system would cost an estimated $2.4 million. Converting the existing digester tankage to a conventional BNR was estimated to cost $2.1 million. This conversion was the recommended action.

Replacing the current mechanical screen with a perforated plate, the preferred alternative, was estimated to cost $128,000.

Installation of a vortex grit removal system, the preferred alternative for grit removal, was estimated to cost $146,000.

A new headworks site was estimated to cost $1.3 million.

An in-place generator, required with the recommended disinfection upgrades, would cost $80,000.

The total cost of all these improvements along with contractor overhead and profit, engineering, legal and administrative costs, and contingencies was $4,373,200. These costs would not come all at once, but would be staggered over a period of 12 to 14 years.

The cost of the first three phases over time would come to a final total of $5,473,000 at a projected 5 percent rate of inflation.

“The bad news is that the Town has already applied for TCEP and CDBG funds for its current water improvement program and cannot apply for those types of funds in the current grant cycle,” Caprara told Council members. He said that there was potentially $100,000 available in grants from DNRC. He said that State and Tribal Assistance Grants up to $500,000 might also be available, but some heavy lobbying in Washington D.C. would be required to pull down such a grant. Some money might also be available through the Waste Water Development Act as well.

Dan Johnson, area specialist for the USDA Rural Development, is also trying to secure some funding for the Town through his department.

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2008 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney